McCain

[olyclimber]

Propaganda Hound

[Martlet]

Actually, that wasn't my point. My point was you're full of shit. My point was you specifically said the -big- lies, all of them, came from Bush. That's a lie, as I've shown. My point was you specifically stated that "It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction" and that is a lie, as I've shown. You and crazy can do a joint apology.

 

Could you show me where Bush tried to establish a 9/11-Iraq connection?

[chucK]

How about this quote from Bush himself?

 

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

 

You can view the quote in context at this left-wing liberal site: www.whitehouse.gov .

[markinore]

Actually, I didn't even call Bush's false statements "lies." I just called them false. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding some of these; he may have been wrong rather than intentionally deceptive. I never said anything about what liberals said or didn't say.

 

Are you denying that Bush tried to establish a connection between 9/11 are Iraq? Please clarify. For a citation to the contrary consider this well-known left-wing publication:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

[mattp]

Actually, HE didn't say that the BIG lies came from Bush and the Conservative press, I did. And by pointing out that Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle said that Saddam had weapons in 1998, or even that Hilary said so in 2002, you have done nothing to refute my statement.

 

Mr. Bush said in his STATE OF THE UNION address that Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium in Africa - after his own intelligence guys had told his own staff that it was probably untrue. Mr. Powell described the uranium tubes that were supposedly for Uranium enrichment centrifuges in his briefing to the U.N. - again when their own intelligence staff told them this was extremely unlikely or just plain incorrect.

 

Point to where he said Iraq was responsible for 911? You are probably right that nobody in the Bush administration probably said, on tape, that Saddam was behind 911. They are smarter than that. However, they've clearly tried to link Saddam and 911 in the minds of the American public and every poll that has come out on this subject has shown that it has worked! Further, those who watch your beloved "fair and accurate" FOX news are the most consistently misinformed on this point. By far. Has anybody in the Administration put any real effort into clearing up this misconception? I think not. Rather, they STILL tell us we went into Iraq as part of the war on terrorism in response to the 911 attacks and nearly every day they are calling Saddam a terrorist and telling us how much safer from terrorism we are now that they've occupied Iraq.

 

Bush and Rumsfeld told us the Iraqi's were going to welcome us as liberators and they sacked the general who warned them that they would find occupation more difficult than they were anticipating. Maybe this wasn't a lie, maybe they actually believed that guy Chalabi and his friends on this point. If so, they are complete idiots -- they believed and repeated a stupid lie.

 

And what about Freedom? Do you really believe that horse manure about how we are in Iraq fighting the good fight so the people in the middle east can live in freedom?

 

We could continue the point by point here: liberals have made some stupid statements at times but it is not the liberals who made blatantly false statements as to the basic circumstances of this war in order to shape the public debate.

 

 

You're trying to argue that liberals base their opinions on lies? Get a grip, Martlett!

Edited May 10, 2004 by mattp

[Martlet]

Actually, I didn't even call Bush's false statements "lies." I just called them false. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding some of these; he may have been wrong rather than intentionally deceptive. I never said anything about what liberals said or didn't say.

 

Are you denying that Bush tried to establish a connection between 9/11 are Iraq? Please clarify. For a citation to the contrary consider this well-known left-wing publication:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

 

My apologies. I attributed the morons post to you.

 

I AM saying Bush didn't implicate Saddam in 9-11. His support of terrorists is well documented, though.

 

 

You're trying to argue that liberals base their opinions on lies?

 

Actually, I just showed you make your own lies as you go.

You're blathering, mattp. Clearly they skipped you ahead in your English GED classes. If you saying that no liberal claimed Saddam had WMD then me showing you numerous examples of where they did doesn't refute your original statement, then go have your mom explain it to you. It's fairly obvious you were wrong.

 

YOU can give a joint apology with crazy. Or try again, and I'll show you for the uniformed moonbat you are again.

[mattp]

Your right, Martlett. I should apologize -- for wasting my time. You obviously do not care to engage on ideas but just want to keep repeating your assertions.

 

Again, I will point out that by showing how Hilary Clinton said Saddam posed a threat you have in no way refuted my statement that "It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we might find the proof of this is the form of a mushroom cloud over Washington." In case you don't remember this line, run a Google search and see who said that.

[Jason_Martin]

Martlet,

 

You don't appear to have a very good understanding of the word "lies." Most of us around here define this as when one intentionally misrepresents a given piece of information. Misrepresentation is what the Bush administration is all about.

 

It's becoming harder and harder every day for me to understand how people can believe in a leader who leads based on his own best interest instead of on what's best for the nation.

 

Chasing terrorists seems like a good idea. Inventing terrorists and alienating many of our former allies by invading Iraq seems like a bad idea. Providing contracts to a company you have ties to in order to rebuild the country you just attacked is about as immoral as you can get.

 

Perhaps Martlet, once you catch up to the rest of us and get your GED maybe you'll start to see through all the lies.

 

I heard a great joke the other day:

 

-How do you find the Republican on the Pirate Ship?

-He's the one wearing two eye patches.

 

Jason

[Martlet]

Your right, Martlett. I should apologize -- for wasting my time. You obviously do not care to engage on ideas but just want to keep repeating your assertion.

 

Again, I will point out that by showing how Hilary Clinton said Saddam posed a threat you have in no way refuted my statement that "It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we might find the proof of this is the form of a mushroom cloud over Washington." In case you don't remember this line, run a Google search and see who said that.

 

 

Ok, we'll play that stupid game. You know you were caught being stupid, and I know you were caught being stupid. Let's all be stupid together.

 

It wasn't the conservatives who said

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

 

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

 

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

 

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

 

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

 

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

[cracked]

Martlet, I tend to agree with your opinions, but that doesn't change the fact that you're lacking in communication skills. Juvenile insults in EVERY SINGLE POST gets old kinda fast. So chill out.

 

Thanks.

[Martlet]

When I stop dealing with juveniles, then I'll consider it. Anyone that posts things BLATANTLY untrue takes the monikers they deserve.

 

Thanks for your concern, though.

[iain]

aren't you two the same person?

[murraysovereign]

From the "well-known left-wing publication" article cited earlier:

 

In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.

 

"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [bush] will have to face when it's all over."

 

How do those moonbat liberals dream up this stuff?

[Jason_Martin]

From the "well-known left-wing publication" article cited earlier:

 

In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.

 

"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [bush] will have to face when it's all over."

 

How do those moonbat liberals dream up this stuff?

 

I think one of them did a year of junior college after he got his GED.

 

Jason

[Martlet]

From the "well-known left-wing publication" article cited earlier:

 

In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.

 

"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [bush] will have to face when it's all over."

 

How do those moonbat liberals dream up this stuff?

 

I ask myself that all the time.

[cracked]

aren't you two the same person?

Um, no.

[minx]

i'd like to suggest that "martlet" come out w/a post clarifying his position. something that includes what lies the liberal faction has told as well as demonstrating how bush has not lied. strictly the facts. leave out your opinion. then, maybe, you might have good discussion of the issues. until such time, i simply choose to view any of martlet's post as drivel and unsubstantiated nonsense.

[Martlet]

i'd like to suggest that "martlet" come out w/a post clarifying his position. something that includes what lies the liberal faction has told as well as demonstrating how bush has not lied. strictly the facts. leave out your opinion. then, maybe, you might have good discussion of the issues. until such time, i simply choose to view any of martlet's post as drivel and unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

Ahhh, backed into a corner, are we? It's funny you should require this of me, and not your counterparts. Particularly funny since THEY made the initial claims, and were quickly proven to be full of shit. You may want to go back and look at my SUBSTANTIATED points.

 

I'm too busy proven you idiots wrong to write you a civics lesson. Read the news.

[iain]

folks, you've been trolled.

[minx]

i'd like to suggest that "martlet" come out w/a post clarifying his position. something that includes what lies the liberal faction has told as well as demonstrating how bush has not lied. strictly the facts. leave out your opinion. then, maybe, you might have good discussion of the issues. until such time, i simply choose to view any of martlet's post as drivel and unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

Ahhh, backed into a corner, are we? It's funny you should require this of me, and not your counterparts. Particularly funny since THEY made the initial claims, and were quickly proven to be full of shit. You may want to go back and look at my SUBSTANTIATED points.

 

I'm too busy proven you idiots wrong to write you a civics lesson. Read the news.

 

i'd suggest you go back and look at your substaniated points and evaluate their merit. i was looking for a concise summary. they are not my counterparts. i have not stated an opinion on this thread. simply looking for some reasoned responses, not hand waving, from the biggest troll on this thread.

[Martlet]

Ahhh, only looking for seasoned responses from me, the only person that has discredited the majority of the moonbat barking.

 

You'll make a good partisan goosestepper someday, minxie.

[cracked]

Martlet, you're getting on my nerves. STFU.

 

Minxie, it ain't worth it.

[Martlet]

I'm sorry cracked. Email me and I'll tell you how to ignore users or not click threads, then you won't have to see me.

 

Of course, if you'd stayed in school you could figure it out on your own, but I don't mind helping.

[j_b]

I believe the play J_B was trying to make was the "Hindsight is 20/20 card". Combat is a brutal business, and when your life is on the line the instinct to stay alive is all consuming.

 

what you call "hindsight is 20/20 card", i call history. thankfully, the record exists to show what people like powell really stand for. combat certainly is a brutal business, but is it really what you call undiscriminately shooting civilians?

[thrutch]

I think Marlet should cite some of his sources when he spouts off. It might lend a bit of credability to some of his rants.